Yep.You can argue the causes of climate change, scream and stamp your feet that it's not happening all you want....whatever.But it's going to to happen, is happening, and there isn't a goddamn thing humans can do about it.

Nice. Everyone will ignore this part: "According to the study, burning fossil fuels will not trigger the Venus syndrome. To produce a runaway greenhouse, there would have to be about ten times more carbon dioxide placed into the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas on the planet."

PirateKing:ITT: People who confuse 'runaway' with 'existing' and insist that because we can't cause a 'runaway', we can't cause the greenhouse effect at all.

This. This article has nothing to do with man-made climate change. It's describing what's been known for a long time, they're just saying we will enter the catastrophic zone a little bit earlier than previously thought.

GoldSpider:Random Anonymous Blackmail: Better is a subjective term, you may like different things than I.

Personally I'm a fan of less pollution, cleaner air, more efficient technology, and saving money, but I understand that sort of thing isn't for everybody.

Yeah, I'm learning that lots of people are for that in their immediate area, but fark someone living in a less affluent area.

"Put it where the poors are" is SOP for anything NIMBYs don't want anything built near them. Then they complain about having to drive long distances to get to anything, so you propose to put a new bus route in for them.

But don't cause any more traffic congestion! And for godsakes, don't you dare widen that road. Bike lanes?!? Not in their neighborhood! Actually connecting the west side and east side of town with a new road saving them 20-30 minutes of travel time? FARK THAT*!!!!

I live close to work, but in choosing that, I live surrounded by 90% of the industry in a city of 150K. I get rained on by the steam plume from an MDF plant when I ride my bike to work. Thankfully it's just water and sawdust, but EWW!!!

//Rant done.

*Seriously, people are fighting a connector street that changes driving not just around the hill but way out of their way to go around it, to going over it, and it would save them 20 minutes of drive time. Why are they fighting it? Because the rest of the city could also use it, and fark those people, that's why.

GoldSpider:What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

By better you mean one where everyone has rationed electricity, requires a child permit to procreate, is vegetarian, all dead bodies are processed for fertilizer, lives in a 500 sq ft apartment in a sectored mega-city, and has a ration limit on there purchases based on their "carbon allotment?" Because that's the world being pushed to combat global cooli-warmi-climate chan- venus... fark it I'm just gonna call it manbearpig. That's the dystopian hellhole where this road leads. That's your BETTER WORLD that the Malthusians chicken-littling all of this want.

Jarhead_h:GoldSpider: What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

By better you mean one where everyone has rationed electricity, requires a child permit to procreate, is vegetarian, all dead bodies are processed for fertilizer, lives in a 500 sq ft apartment in a sectored mega-city, and has a ration limit on there purchases based on their "carbon allotment?" Because that's the world being pushed to combat global cooli-warmi-climate chan- venus... fark it I'm just gonna call it manbearpig. That's the dystopian hellhole where this road leads. That's your BETTER WORLD that the Malthusians chicken-littling all of this want.

Damn man, I've heard of setting up and knocking down strawmen, but you nuked that farker from orbit.

after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

WTP 2:after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

/am i the only one seeing a pattern here?

Because there's a difference between inbound short wave radiation and reflected long wave radiation.

WTP 2:after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

meat0918:Jarhead_h: GoldSpider: What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

By better you mean one where everyone has rationed electricity, requires a child permit to procreate, is vegetarian, all dead bodies are processed for fertilizer, lives in a 500 sq ft apartment in a sectored mega-city, and has a ration limit on there purchases based on their "carbon allotment?" Because that's the world being pushed to combat global cooli-warmi-climate chan- venus... fark it I'm just gonna call it manbearpig. That's the dystopian hellhole where this road leads. That's your BETTER WORLD that the Malthusians chicken-littling all of this want.

Damn man, I've heard of setting up and knocking down strawmen, but you nuked that farker from orbit.

StopLurkListen:Nice. Everyone will ignore this part: "According to the study, burning fossil fuels will not trigger the Venus syndrome. To produce a runaway greenhouse, there would have to be about ten times more carbon dioxide placed into the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas on the planet."

However they did not address the positive feedback loops that putting that much CO2 in the atmosphere create. Current warming is melting permafrost and releasing methane. How much methane would it take? How much methane is currently trapped? Also you have the albedo loop. Polar ice reflects incoming energy, dark water absorbs it. Thus as ice melts due to rising temperatures, more energy is absorbed, which melts more ice... How big of an effect will this have? Anthropological heating knocked us off thermal equilibrium, and thus is at fault for the results of the feedback loops as well as the direct heating.

WTP 2:after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

/am i the only one seeing a pattern here?

Clouds do have a reflective effect, but, afaik, it's small compared to warming caused by water vapor.

Loren:PirateKing: ITT: People who confuse 'runaway' with 'existing' and insist that because we can't cause a 'runaway', we can't cause the greenhouse effect at all.

This. This article has nothing to do with man-made climate change. It's describing what's been known for a long time, they're just saying we will enter the catastrophic zone a little bit earlier than previously thought.

Wow. You guys could find reason for alarmism in the ingredients list on a Twinkie.

So which is it? Are sceptics wrong in what they thing scientists are saying?

Or are they right, but somehow invalid for believing some scientists more than others?

Having split out your double-barrelled comment into its constituent parts, I see that each is weak and feeble. Conjoining multiple weak arguments to make one that looks strong is a comm on trick among climate alarmists. IPCC reports contain thousands of weak arguments without ever once *really* justifying the alarmism.

It has to do I think with a post-modern notion that all arguments should be equally valid or at least that there should not be absolutes of truth, which reduces the differential merit of arguments. With that in place it becomes a war of numbers, most clearly seen in the ridiculous non-sense filled "sceptical science" propaganda site.

But of course, if you can think up one weak argument, you can think up a hundred, but that;s still miles away from even a single good argument. So the whole thing reamins weak and feeble.

DarwiOdrade:AGW is to runaway greenhouse effect as a bulldozer is to plate tectonics

This article isn't trying to say anything about AGW, so can we stop the usual climate change antics now?

The relevence to sceptics is that it helps to clarify the vastly different amounts of CO2 on Earth and Venusm and the vast differences in the amount (and nature) of greenhouse effect in play. This is good. It helps dispel rumours put about by alarmists in the past that Earth will become Venus.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, just say nothing. Don't sit and vomit out a prattling paragraph about what you imagine other people believe.

In my view, he is accurately reflecting where the eco movement is actually headed. You may not want your head-in-the-clouds ideology punctured, but history tells us that people like you are the problem.

skozlaw:WTP 2: after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

/am i the only one seeing a pattern here?

Because there's a difference between inbound short wave radiation and reflected long wave radiation.

Next question?

Hey scoslaw, why dont you tell him how the theory you just presented predicts warming in the upper atmosphere? Then tell him whether or not the upper atmosphere has in fact warmed.

Baryogenesis:meat0918: Jarhead_h: GoldSpider: What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

By better you mean one where everyone has rationed electricity, requires a child permit to procreate, is vegetarian, all dead bodies are processed for fertilizer, lives in a 500 sq ft apartment in a sectored mega-city, and has a ration limit on there purchases based on their "carbon allotment?" Because that's the world being pushed to combat global cooli-warmi-climate chan- venus... fark it I'm just gonna call it manbearpig. That's the dystopian hellhole where this road leads. That's your BETTER WORLD that the Malthusians chicken-littling all of this want.

Damn man, I've heard of setting up and knocking down strawmen, but you nuked that farker from orbit.

Poe's law? It's so over the top that it must be.

In the future "an inconvenient truth" (your bible) will be laughed at as though it were a spoof, even though it was serious at the time. Lol.

NotARocketScientist:StopLurkListen: Nice. Everyone will ignore this part: "According to the study, burning fossil fuels will not trigger the Venus syndrome. To produce a runaway greenhouse, there would have to be about ten times more carbon dioxide placed into the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas on the planet."

However they did not address the positive feedback loops that putting that much CO2 in the atmosphere create.

WTP 2:after being told in third grade(1966) that co2 reflects heat and that the world would get hotter,i asked wouldn't that keep the heat out and was told no because this is what the newspaper article said. SO,i will ask again if we have more water vapor in the atmosphere wouldn't that reflect heat out??if the snow on the ground can reflect heat out WHY NOT THE CLOUDS???

THE GREAT NAME:HighZoolander: Suddenly deniers believe what (they think) scientists are saying.

So which is it? Are sceptics wrong in what they thing scientists are saying?

Or are they right, but somehow invalid for believing some scientists more than others?

Having split out your double-barrelled comment into its constituent parts, I see that each is weak and feeble. Conjoining multiple weak arguments to make one that looks strong is a comm on trick among climate alarmists. IPCC reports contain thousands of weak arguments without ever once *really* justifying the alarmism.

It has to do I think with a post-modern notion that all arguments should be equally valid or at least that there should not be absolutes of truth, which reduces the differential merit of arguments. With that in place it becomes a war of numbers, most clearly seen in the ridiculous non-sense filled "sceptical science" propaganda site.

But of course, if you can think up one weak argument, you can think up a hundred, but that;s still miles away from even a single good argument. So the whole thing reamins weak and feeble.

Come on now, surely you can do better than that. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

So which is it? Are sceptics wrong in what they thing scientists are saying?

Or are they right, but somehow invalid for believing some scientists more than others?

Having split out your double-barrelled comment into its constituent parts, I see that each is weak and feeble. Conjoining multiple weak arguments to make one that looks strong is a comm on trick among climate alarmists. IPCC reports contain thousands of weak arguments without ever once *really* justifying the alarmism.

It has to do I think with a post-modern notion that all arguments should be equally valid or at least that there should not be absolutes of truth, which reduces the differential merit of arguments. With that in place it becomes a war of numbers, most clearly seen in the ridiculous non-sense filled "sceptical science" propaganda site.

But of course, if you can think up one weak argument, you can think up a hundred, but that;s still miles away from even a single good argument. So the whole thing reamins weak and feeble.

Come on now, surely you can do better than that. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

It's actually a very central point, and one of the main reasons NAME first became sceptical. I'll give you an illustration of what I mean. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html gives a list of bad things people have said gloabal warming would cause. How many d oyou think are legitimate concerns? 50%? 10%? 1%? 0.1%? It makes a huge difference to the overall conclusion that you draw. If you think even 10% are legitimate, you would conclude overall that lgobal warming would be a disaster. But what if the figure is much, much lower? And of course who (apart from those getting funding) has time to check them all?

NAME became a sceptic when he noticed that climate alarmists both in climatology institutions and on the net, just keep throwing weak argument after weak argument at it, since they do not have any really solid argument that would really settle things.

THE GREAT NAME:NAME became a sceptic when he noticed that climate alarmists both in climatology institutions and on the net, just keep throwing weak argument after weak argument at it, since they do not have any really solid argument that would really settle things.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: 13,950 peer reviewed climate related studies done since 1991, 25 or so showing that climate change may not be happening / may not be related to humanity. A scientist who, in fact, denied climate change, decided that rather than just nay-say, he would actually read the papers and verify their associates methods, had a change of heart, even though his own study was financed by the Koch brothers (due in large part to his being, well, an actual scientist). And to nip a potential argument in the bud regarding peer review, there is a misconception that scientists just read their peers papers and say "Ayup! This article says the best cheese comes from boll weevils. Looks good to me! Yuk yuk yuk!" This couldn't be farther from the truth. Scientists are positively GIDDY to prove other scientists wrong, even more so if it's a friend or colleague.

Now, climatologists, it can very easily be said, can not say definitively what will happen beyond rising sea levels, however nearly all will agree that an immense influx of methane into the atmosphere certainly won't help our situation (though it's not nearly as much as many had expected, which is good). This has been a common misconception ever since that whole non-scandal where portions from "leaked" emails were cherry picked to say "LOOK! See?! Even THEY admit it's all fake!"

So the upshot is you can deny that climate change is happening, that it is influenced largely by humanity, and that shiats gonna get real around there here parts. You can call them "weak" arguments, even though they are, in fact, exceptionally good. People "deny" that the Earth is round, that we landed on the moon, etc. However it can not be refuted. Every single last attempt at refutation has failed, continues to fail, and likely will continue to fail.

Reasonably good links:- List of scientists skeptical (it's spelled with a K, by the way Mate). You can find their papers and read their arguments, which are far better than the comical one you link to.- Link to an article about peer reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011- Link to history of climate change discussion- Link to a list of climate change articles and studies so you can go over the data yourself. Don't take my word for it, don't take anyone's word for it, go through their research and look at it for yourself. The argument made in that article you list... I mean really, that's like going to an article written by the Pope on why you should give your money to him.- Definition of "Consensus", which appears to be very much needed by many.